To obstruct the heritability of wealth (though inheritance taxes) is to disconnect economics from genetics. Whose bizarre agenda does that serve?
-
Show this thread
-
Replying to @Outsideness
There is no disconnecting of economics from genetics and the heritability and hoarding of wealth has an overall dysgenic effect, Nick.
2 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @bAbAHAdAd @Outsideness
I don't know if it is dysgenic but it definitely encourages idleness among many people in a way that is economically unproductive. Talented kids would do well economically without a great deal of inherited wealth, and any realistic cap will still let them be millionaires.
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
In fact the argument in books like A Farewell to Alms is that primogeniture meant that everyone but the first son had to replace the lower classes in a form of Darwinian Malthusianism
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @woke8yearold @bAbAHAdAd
Inheritance taxes are redistributive. Promogeniture is anti-redistributive.
2 replies 0 retweets 13 likes -
... Also think you're twisting the Clarke argument a little. As long as the Malthusian grinder is fed, there's no necessity that all families contribute their share. ...
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
... Since primogeniture is non-competitive (within the family), it does less selective work than implicit inter-familial competition.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Outsideness @bAbAHAdAd
It is not necessarily that it did selective work so much as it forced the children of the elite out into broader society. If you can't become the local squire or whatever then you have to get a job. If you are by nature talented and smart that's not necessarily a bad thing
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Adversity makes people better, not worse.
2 replies 0 retweets 6 likes
Okay, Calvin's dad
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.